Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 627849 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#460378 Jul 9, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>Why was Jesus called EMANUEL,God With us,in Lukes'Gospel?....
Jesus isn't Emmanuel. They were born about 700 years apart.

Ask a Jew to explain THEIR BOOK to you.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#460379 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
May be she feels that enough has been said by others...
and it would be a waste of her time...
The Bible says..
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Thanks Kay..It's a long running feud

The woman she hates is Jewish.

And does nit see a speck of Christ's love in her..sorry to say..
Her family is Christiann and she respects them and my belief.

I feel in Jews waiting on Messiah...We will all see Him and know who He is
And all knees will bow..
God can handle all that just fine:)

And yes I am tired of it and SORRY it was brought to this forum..

What I was saying before I was,interrupted still goes ..We are to plant seeds ..and hope they grow..And hope the SPIRIT waters them

In the ways he chooses

We should just nit be stumbling blocks to anyone reading

As I said I am guilty as well.

God will sort THrough the Churches looking for HIS Sheep

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460380 Jul 9, 2013
ReginaM wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us where a Pope said they were removed because they didn't exist.
If you can't, then it's just more anti-Catholic nonsense.
Thanks.
You stated that the saints WERE removed from the Catholic Universal calendar. Did the devil remove them, or were they removed with the approval of popes. And if they were removed, that is a show of horrible disrespect if the popes didn't actually believe they were nonexistent to begin with.

I suggest you are being very silly ... just to try to prove you are right.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460381 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
Psa 42:1 As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.
Psa 42:2 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
Psa 42:3 My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God?
Psa 42:4 When I remember these things, I pour out my soul in me: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holyday.
Psa 42:5 Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me?
hope thou in God:
for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance.
As The Deer Panteth For The Water and sing along!
As the deer panteth for the water,
So my soul longs after you
You alone are my hearts desire,
And I long to worship You.
Chorus:
You alone are my strength, my shield;
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my hearts desire,
And I long to worship You.
I want you more than gold or silver,
Only You can satisfy
You alone are the real joy giver
And the apple of my eye.
Chorus:
You alone are my strength, my shield;
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my hearts desire,
And I long to worship You.
You're my friend and You're my brother,
Even though you are a King
I love You more than any other
So much more than anything.
Chorus:
You alone are my strength, my shield;
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my hearts desire,
And I long to worship You.
-
Yes Jesus loves you
Yes Jesus loves you
Yes Jesus loves you
Because you say it's true

skip the yodeling

Yes Jesus loves you
Yes Jesus loves you
Yes Jesus loves you
Because you say it's true

:)
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#460382 Jul 9, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree ..I just get sad..And I'm guilty too.
When on some of these forums forums and this one is tame .
We just bicker over whose Church is right
I get sad
When people USe Jesus
To put down others.
What does it say to
Non believers or people the Spirit may be calling who
Might actually be searching
We we Christians hurt others with our words
What does it say about Jesus and His mercy.
I edit a lot on another forum. Personal insults going both ways
But I feel we shoukd do better...
I prayed really hard on this the other nite when I forced hurt and angry on personal insults
Bringing unprovoked past..Taunting others ..
It's nit what Christians shoukd be doing IMO .
AND on this thread with RELIGIUIS,content
We should be calling people to HIM by our words and actions
Not to any Church ...But Him alone
I am not jealous if In plant a seed and it is harvested elsewhere.
We shoukd be planting seeds IMO.
Not fighting on who lives Jesus more. Again my opinion ..
Some mysteries we will not know the facts of until we are told when we are with Him.
Including but not limited to The EUCHARIST
FAITH ..Grace ..Salvation..lead us to our own personal relationship.
With Jedi s.
Fir what it's worth I was reading here this morning
And felt led to post this..
RoSezs:

Jesus wept for Jerusalem.

More often than not weeping for the unsaved, is part of patient endurance, which is love. It is not to be denied, or a waste of time. Rather, I think it is a gift of grace, unlooked for, and shared by God to some.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460383 Jul 9, 2013
I believe it's as likely that Jesus loves anybody, as it is that Santa Claus loves anybody.

Religion is all a crap-shoot! Pun intended.

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#460384 Jul 9, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
227
<quoted text>
Translation: 1. a rendering of something into another language or into one's own language from another. 2. a version in a different language: an English translation of Plato.3. the act or process of translating.4. the state of being translated.
5. motion in which all particles of a body move with the same velocity along parallel paths.6. Genetics. the process by which messenger RNA specifies the sequence of amino acids that line up on a ribosome for protein synthesis.
215 220
This is not a translation: Why do you not answer my question???
This is not a translation: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????
This is not a translation:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

~~~

You wrote
Your first reason holds not water.....
Noah's ark did not hold water...It sat upon the water...

Isaiah is known as the Messianic Prophet He wrote

Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and

his name shall be called

Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Your theory just sank...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460385 Jul 9, 2013
227
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Secondly, I am not accustomed to answering a "shotgun fallacy".
Shotgun fallacy:
"Shotgun argumentation" is a metaphor from real life: It's much easier to hunt a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle. This is because a rifle only fires one bullet and there's a high probability of a miss. A shotgun, however, fires tens or even hundreds of small pellets, and the probability of at least one of them hitting the rabbit is quite high.

Shotgun argumentation has the same basic idea: The more small arguments or "evidence" you present in favor of some claim, the higher the probability that someone will believe you regarldess of how ridiculous those arguments are. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, just the sheer amount of arguments or "evidence" may be enough to convince someone that something strange is going on. The idea is basically: "There is this much evidence against the official story, there must be something wrong with it." One or two pieces of "evidence" may not be enough to convince anyone, but collect a set of a couple of hundreds of pieces of "evidence" and it immediately starts being more believable.

Of course the fallacy here is that the amount of "evidence" is in no way proof of anything. The vast majority, and usually all of this "evidence" is easily explainable and just patently false. There may be a few points which may be more difficult to explain, but they alone wouldn't be so convincing.

Secondly, and more closely related to the shotgun methapor: The more arguments or individual pieces of "evidence" you have, the higher the probability that at least some of them will convince someone. Someone might not get convinced by most of the arguments, but among them there may be one or a few which sounds so plausible to him that he is then convinced. Thus one or a few of the "pellets" hit the "rabbit" and killed it: Mission accomplished.

I have a concrete example of this: I had a friend who is academically educated, a MSc, and doing research work (relating to computer science) at a university. He is rational, intelligent and well-educated.

Yet still this person, at least some years ago, completely believed the Moon hoax theory. Why? He said to me quite explicitly that there was one thing that convinced him: The flag moving after it had been planted on the ground.

One of the pellets had hit the rabbit and killed it. The shotgun argumentation had been successful.

If even highly-educated academic people can fall for such "evidence" (which is easily explained), how more easily are more "regular" people going to believe the sheer amount of them? Sadly, quite a lot more easily.

Most conspiracy theorists continue to present the same old tired arguments which are very easy to prove wrong. They need all those arguments, no matter how ridiculous, for their shotgun argumentation tactics to work.

This is not shot gun fallacy: Why do you not answer my question???

This is not a shotgun fallacy: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

This is not a shot gun fallacy:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Your second reason holds not water.....

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460386 Jul 9, 2013
They either lied then when they insinuated that he WAS canonized as a saint, or they are lying now when they state he was simply a martyr.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>

"Whatever happened to St. Christopher? Is he still a saint?"

Before the 1969 reform of the Roman calendar, Christopher was listed as a martyr who died under Decius. Nothing else is known about him.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#whatev...

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460387 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah's ark did not hold water...It sat upon the water...
I suggest you take your nose out of the bible and study some history for a change. Your call from a supposed god has gone to your head.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>

From the book “Weather Lore,” Reader’s Digest, Published 2007, comes the following…

Floods

Almost 5000 years ago, some scientists believe, a large asteroid or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean, producing a tsunami about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Southeast Asia in December 2004. That almost every culture throughout history has had a flood myth, of which Noah and the Ark is the most famous in the Western world, demonstrates the fear and awe that floods inspire in human consciousness.

Since: Sep 09

Smithers, Canada

#460388 Jul 9, 2013
From the book “Weather Lore,” Reader’s Digest, Published 2007, comes the following…

It would be no exaggeration to say that almost every culture has a flood myth. While the biblical flood epic of Noah and the Ark is perhaps the best known to the Western world, ancient civilizations as diverse as Babylonia and Wales, or Russian and Sumatra, have their own versions of a giant flood. Many of these myths are surprisingly similar.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460389 Jul 9, 2013
227
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Thirdly, the scriptures you quote, are like a subtle "strawman".
You are asking me to prove something which is not directly stated, and ask me to interpret something into the true meaning of these scriptures.
Straw man argumentation

A "straw man argument" is the process of taking an argument of the opponent, distorting it or taking it out of context so that it basically changes meaning, and then ridiculing it in order to make the opponent look bad.

For example, a conspiracy theorist may say something like: "Sceptics argue that stars are too faint to see in space (which is why there are no stars in photographs), yet astronauts said that they could see stars."

This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. That's taking an argument completely out of context and changing its meaning.

It's actually a bit unfortunate that many debunking sites use the sentence "the stars are too faint to be seen" when explaining the lack of stars in photographs. That sentence, while in its context not false, is confusing and misleading. It's trying to put in simple words a more technical explanation (which usually follows). Unfortunately, it's too simplistic and good material for straw man arguments. I wish debunkers stopped using simplistic sentences like that one.

(The real explanation for the lacking stars is, of course, related to the exposure time and shutter aperture of the cameras, which were set to photograph the Moon surface illuminated by direct sunlight. The stars are not bright enough for such short exposure times. If the cameras had been set up to photograph the stars, the lunar surface would have been completely overexposed. This is basic photography.)

This is not a subtle strawman:Why do you not answer my question???

This is not a subtle strawman: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

This is not a subtle strawman:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Your third reason holds not water.....
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#460390 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
YOU WROTE
Religionists must have faith and reason in order to function.
IN MY OPINION ....THE BEST DEFINITION OF FAITH IN THE BIBLE
Is about Abraham the father of faith...
The Apostle Paul put it this way...
Rom 4:20 ---> He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.<---
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
NOTE====>
Rom 4:23 ====> Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. <====
confronting:

Paul was perhaps more deeply involved in describing the virtue of faith, especially in the N.T., than others.

The spiritual virtues; faith, hope, and especially love.

As he describes them, faith and hope are very much linked, and link us, and are gifts of God, between our created nature and His Spiritual Nature.

So faith is objective, with God being the Object of our faith, but also subjective since it is part of oneself. I both lose and find myself in need of greater faith and hope, and am only satisfied in God. But these will pass as one sees God, and then only love remains....
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460391 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated that the saints WERE removed from the Catholic Universal calendar. Did the devil remove them, or were they removed with the approval of popes. And if they were removed, that is a show of horrible disrespect if the popes didn't actually believe they were nonexistent to begin with.
I suggest you are being very silly ... just to try to prove you are right.
Just as I thought, you can't produce any documented evidence that any Pope removed a saint from the Universal Calendar because they thought they were nonexistent.

All you can do is promulgate silly theories in lieu thereof and call me names...just to try to prove you are right.

Thanks!! Glad to have had the opportunity to set the record straight about the Saints! St. Christopher, pray for us!

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#460392 Jul 9, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
<quoted text>
~~~
May be she feels that enough has been said by others...
and it would be a waste of her time...
The Bible says..
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Yep. If someone doesn't buy your bullshit after two attempts then they are far to wise to join your cult.
ReginaM

Toms River, NJ

#460393 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
They either lied then when they insinuated that he WAS canonized as a saint, or they are lying now when they state he was simply a martyr.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>
"Whatever happened to St. Christopher? Is he still a saint?"
Before the 1969 reform of the Roman calendar, Christopher was listed as a martyr who died under Decius. Nothing else is known about him.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#whatev...
Was St. Christopher Real?

I’m glad you asked this question, because EVEN MANY PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATORS DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER.****
St. Christopher is STILL a saint!!!
What happened in the 1960s was that the Church revised its universal calendar, the schedule of celebrations that are observed by the worldwide Church. Some saints’ days were removed, others added. This did not mean that those removed were no longer saints—only that the Church no longer celebrated their feast days everywhere. Individual communities and Catholics are still free to honor these saints and choose them as patrons. In fact, only a tiny percentage of canonized or recognized saints appear in the universal calendar. Many saints of religious orders are honored only within that order, for example.

You can be proud to have a powerful patron, intercessor, and namesake in St. Christopher. We know little about him historically—only that he died about A.D. 251—but that is also true of many early martyrs. We know they are in heaven, nonetheless.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-st...

****and the person who contributed the article to catholic dot org, apparently!

Once again, thanks for the opportunity to correct you, June. It's always a pleasure!
Human Being

Sunset, LA

#460394 Jul 9, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they created their own god, as did all myth-makers create their own gods and goddesses through the eons of time concerning religion.
Some certain Jews thought they were special and so they needed one god all their own. Previously Jews were polytheistic and believed in multiple gods.
You really need to be more objective concerning religion and as long as you stay PUT in Catholicism, you will subject your self only to what suits your Catholic lusts.
June:

My answer is in the form of a question:

If being a Christian is absolutely satisfying in all aspects, then why try to be objectively against it?

You are trying to make a false dilemma, but it seems more like a casual simplification....I am not quite sure. Good try.

So, if you only look objectively, the subjective is ignored. And vice versa. Ignoring the subjective is not being truthful or honest....

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460395 Jul 9, 2013
225 228
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Fourth, "cherry-picking" you chop-up the scriptures, and leave off the context within which they are written. Thus, anyone, can interpret them, any way they desire.
Quoting Scripture from Ge to Rev that supports the same message is not cherry picking...it is the most basic of Bible Study practices..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460397 Jul 9, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Fifth, the way you ask the question, we return to the "ducks quack" issue. You conclude ducks don't quack because it is not written in scripture. Likewise, when you demand a yes or not answer from me, I can say the scriptures you use do not tell me ducks do or don't quack.
There is no ducks quake issue in: Why do you not answer my question???

There is no ducks issue in: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

Your fifth reason also holds not water..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#460399 Jul 9, 2013
Human Being wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxbow:

Sixth, its just a trick question, a false delemma, in which if I commit one way or the other, you can "prove" otherwise.
This is not a trick question nor a false dilemma:Why do you not answer my question???

This is not a trick question nor a false dilemma: Does the following verses teach that Christ is God??????

So...your sixth reason hold not also water...

The reason you will not answer my questions is that you can see it will reveal the truth...and that you cannot accept...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News God's calling: Newly ordained priests ready to ... (Jul '10) 23 hr FrFrancis 219
News Border visit will cap Pope Francis' trip to Mexico Feb 9 huey goins 17
News Donald Trump nominated for Nobel Prize thanks t... Feb 8 ownerd 2
News Pope to tour violent corners of Mexico Feb 8 Raydot 2
News Las Crucens prepare for Pope Francis Feb 5 huey goins 2
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Feb 5 Gee Tee 9,892
News Life-size pope cutout tours El Paso Feb 4 huey goins 3
More from around the web